On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:31:16PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:37:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >>>>                       Then start over with sorted hunks (for example
> >>>>     building a table of offsets within the patch for each hunk to
> >>>>     support this).
> [...]
> > Well, then the result is not compatible with what
> > original patch-id would produce.
> Nope, I meant sorting to produce what the original patch-id would
> produce for a diff with the default sorting order.  The result is a
> patch-id that can be compared with patch-ids from earlier versions of
> git as long as -O<orderfile> was not used (which was already not
> compatible with reliable use of patch-id).
> [...]
> > Just making sure: is it correct that there's no requirement to use same
> > algorithm between patch-ids.c and builtin/patch-id.c ?
> I think so, as long as Documentation/git-cherry.txt is updated to stop
> pretending 'git cherry' calls 'git patch-id' and the two get comments
> about it, though it seems simpler to keep them roughly the same.
> (They already differ in handling of binary files.)

How do they differ btw?

> Thanks,
> Jonathan
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to